The Town Library

Planning Court Judgments

Our latest update as to any rulings last week of the Planning Court together with any relevant appellate judgments, along with a commentary by Town Legal LLP and links. Where appropriate, we also include other relevant public law rulings from other courts.

Planning Court Weekly Update – Week to 19 May 2023

This is a list of judgments of the Planning Court following a full hearing, or arising from an appeal from a Planning Court judgment, that were handed down in the preceding week. All links are to the relevant BAILII transcript. Summaries are for information only and are not to be relied upon as advice.


Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities v Smith & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 514 (16 May 2023) View summary here.

Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities v Smith & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 514 (16 May 2023)

This Court of Appeal case considered whether an appeal planning officer offering a professional judgment to a planning inspector on a planning appeal could make the procedure for determining the appeal unfair.

The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities successfully appealed the decision by Mr Justice Kerr in the High Court to quash the Inspector’s decision.


Mr Smith (the Respondent) applied for consent from the local planning authority to erect an illuminated advertisement on Shoreditch High Street. The application was refused by the local planning authority in 2021 and Mr Smith appealed the decision to the Secretary of State pursuant to s.78 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990. An inspector was appointed to determine the appeal and the procedure for the appeal was via written representations. The Inspector appointed an appeal planning officer to assist him in determining the appeal.

In the current case, the appeal planning officer (“the APO”) appointed undertook a site visit, both prior to and following which, the APO discussed and reviewed the documents and the overall appeal, including the site visit. The APO then produced a reasoned written recommendation as to her views on the appeal and she concluded, in her opinion, that the appeal should be dismissed due to harm to the visual amenity of the area. The Inspector, having regard to all the evidence in front of him and the recommendation provided by the APO, concluded that the appeal should be dismissed.

Grounds of challenge

Mr Smith challenged the Inspector’s decision on the grounds that the procedure used to determine the appeal was unfair. The reasoning for this was, Mr Smith contended, that the APO’s role is restricted to one which only allows them to assist with reporting, document handling and carrying out site visits. The APO in this instance, however, went further in providing a professional judgement on the appeal itself, which went beyond the confines of their role. This argument was successful in the High Court and Mr Justice Kerr found for Mr Smith. Mr Justice Kerr held that, although the APO was “qualified” in the sense that she possessed an undergraduate degree and received training, she was “seriously underqualified” for the purposes of exercising the evaluative professional judgement required to determine a matter such as visual amenity. Further, he held that providing a reasoned recommendation to the Inspector amounted to a “powerful steer”.

In the Court of Appeal, the Court overturned the decision of Mr Justice Kerr and found for the Secretary of State. Lord Justice Lewis noted the following key points as to why the procedure was not unfair:

  1. It is for the decision-maker to decide on the procedure to be followed provided that the procedure is fair and that it provides decision-maker the necessary material to make a decision ([18]);
  2. There is no evidential basis to conclude that the APO was “seriously underqualified” to exercise evaluative professional planning judgement. Moreover, it is not for the Court, exercising supervisory functions by way of judicial and statutory review, to determine the appropriate level of qualifications for appeal planning officers ([20]);
  3. Notwithstanding that the APO gave her reasoned recommendations, the decision-making power rested with the Inspector and it was open to the Inspector to agree or disagree with the Officer’s recommendation – the ultimate decision was the Inspector’s ([19-20]);

In an appeal process which is conducted via written representations, procedural fairness does not require the APO to provide their recommendations to the parties for comment, prior to the Inspector taking a decision – she was part of the “internal machinery within the planning inspectorate” to enable the Inspector’s decision ([22]).

Full Case

Written by Chatura Saravanan, Town Legal.


Key contacts
Chatura Saravanan
Paralegal, Town Legal LLP

< back to News & Resources

Copyright © 2023 Town Legal LLP and licensors. All rights reserved.

Subscribe to our mailing list for weekly updates

Marketing Permissions
Town Legal will use the information you provide on this form to send you the Town Library update and to provide you with information and updates from Town Legal LLP. Please let us know all the ways you would like to hear from us:

You can change your mind at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in the footer of any email you receive from us, or by contacting us at We will treat your information with respect. For more information about our privacy practices please review our Privacy Policy available by clicking the ‘Our Privacy Policy’ button below. This is also available here. By clicking ‘Subscribe to list’ below, you agree that we may process your information in accordance with these terms.

We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By clicking below to subscribe, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing. Learn more about Mailchimp’s privacy practices here.


This site uses cookies to keep our site secure and provide our users with the best possible experience. For more information, click here.

I Decline I Accept